Discussion on Elburn Station will wait another week

by Susan O’Neill
ELBURN—A number of residents showed up at Tuesday’s Village Board meeting, but those who thought they would witness a discussion regarding the Elburn Station came away disappointed.

Village President Dave Anderson outlined the four issues he said trustees want to see resolved before moving forward with the ShoDeen development, but no discussion took place, as trustee Ethan Hastert was out of the country, and Anderson said it was important that all board members take part in the discussion.

Anderson said the four issues are: the number of apartments, senior housing, financing the development, and the pedestrian bridge.

The current plan for Elburn Station calls for 800 rental units out of 2,200 homes built out over the next 20 years. Many of the apartments had been designated in a previous plan as condominiums. Board members have said repeatedly that they do not want that high of a ratio of apartments to single-family housing.

Trustees have also said that they would like to see some of the rental units turned into senior housing to give residents the option of living in Elburn throughout their lives.

At least some trustees are still concerned about the financing for the development, especially given Elburn’s experience with Blackberry Creek. B&B Enterprises did not complete all of the infrastructure improvements within the subdivision. Four years later, the village is just now obtaining a commitment from the bond company to finance the remaining work.

Board members have made several suggestions for how to mitigate those concerns, including the requirement that one phase of the development be close to complete before allowing work to begin on subsequent phases.

The fourth issue involves funding for the pedestrian bridge. The developer has offered to pay $25 per unit toward the cost of the bridge, which board members say is not enough.

Residents Thomas Gush and Fred Houdek during the meeting expressed their concern about the lack of progress the board has made with the development plan. Houdek said that he did not think there should be such negativity about renters that would live in the ShoDeen development, and that people should not assume renters don’t take care of the property in which they live.

Houdek also expressed concern that if the board did not act soon, the development would pass over Elburn to west of Route 47.

Gush said he understands that there are some issues to resolve with the developer, but he does not think they are insurmountable. He expanded on his concerns after the meeting.

“The city council isn’t doing what they should be doing. I don’t hear any compromise,” Gush said, also noting that “somebody is always absent.”

Gush said he and his wife moved to Elburn nine years ago because he felt the town had a bright future. Nowadays, he is not seeing the progressiveness he had hoped for the village.

“We’re not moving forward,” he said. “There is a sunset provision on this money from the feds (for the Anderson Road extension and bridge). My concern is that we put it off and put it off, and we will lose that money. And then the future of Elburn is finished.”

Anderson said that the discussion will take place at the village’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, Jan. 28, 7 p.m. at Village Hall.

“Next week, we’ll bring it forward,” he said. “We’ll come to some consensus and take it to the developer.”

Anderson said there could be a vote by mid-February, and emphasized that there will be some changes.

“We need to think about what we want to look like 20 years from now,” he said.

In the meantime, board members encourage residents to attend the Comprehensive Land Use Open House on Thursday, Jan. 24 from 5 to 7 p.m. at Lions Park.

Aye votes were to table the project until the following took place.
A: Shodeen rectified their financial conflict with a bank.
B: The bridge is built.

It was always my understanding under…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 12:47 PM

It was always my understanding under Roberts rules of order, only the members whom voted aye are allowed to re-open a tabled topic. Do they use different rules of conduct?
As far as I I know,
Mr Anderson should have never allowed it to be discussed at Haserts request.

The Anderson Road project isn’t an Elburn issue its a county issue. Sho-deen who owns the land now turned down an offer from Kane county of over 2.4 million for 70 or so acres needed for the over pass. WHY ?? Could it be…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 12:54 PM

holding Elburn hostage in some way? Which leads me to another question, why are the voters of Elburn and the county not given a chance to vote on the Anderson Road bridge? I have heard that the reason the Anderson Road bridge issue will not be placed on the ballot has to do with the taxpayers not having all of the information that our village trustees do. I know that the mayor and trustees have worked long and hard on the bridge and the TOD issue, and I appreciate all of their efforts. How…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 12:56 PM

could we as taxpayers possibly be trusted with such an important decision? Face it, most of us are just simple people, but we are intelligent enough to know when a developer is railroading an entire village for their own purposes.

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Question I’d like to know is how on earth was the Sho-Deen thing brought back the the table when it was voted down last year?
Well…the question a lot of folks prolly want to know is back in May of 2011 when it was standing room only were 4:1 against the huge development yet it keeps getting moved on and on to the point Shodeen is trying to make you and people believe the Anderson Bridge is hinged on approval on their money pit on the backs of Elburn tax payers. Again I say if Shodeen wants…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 1:01 PM

to build let them work with Blackberry creek that is more than 1/4 incomplete. To even consider approving more development with all the foreclosures and lack of commercial tax base is insane to go forward.

The board voted it down months ago as per the wishes of most Elburn residents who live here and pay taxes. Question now is how on earth has this been brought up again till after the bridige is built by Kane county. Anderson road/bridge isn’t an Elburn project!!

Let Kane County take the…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 1:02 PM

land that is required for the Anderson road overpass by eminent domain. That way Elburn tax payer will be safe and save money,but cost a lot more if Sho-Deen get its way. Dang Get Sho-Deen to work of finishing the South side of Kesslienger road. You know that Blackberry thing that was worked out into bankruptcy.

Now too what about all the cluster on parking issues downtown when that are just a small problem (wink)can you see any problems with 20% more cars /30% more cares in an area that you…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Then too the infrastructure of our waste water can’t handle what Sho-Deen wants and who’s going to flip the bill…Yes you Elburn Tax Payer’s will prolly add another 10 to 20% onto your city bills.
But wait from what I understand too is that Elburn would be flipping the bill to maintain that multi-million dollar bridge if that project is anaxed .Really now please someone explain on how is that going to happen when we are having problems to maintain our broken down streets ( in some ares) and…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 1:09 PM

various other issues of public safety like getting from St.Gauls to Lions park safely.

Last year our board voted down the project till the bridge was build and various other issues were taken care of by Sho-Deen. The Blackberry problem is still an ongoing problem so how on earth can this issue even be considered.

Let Kane County take the land that is required for the Anderson road overpass by eminent domain. That way Elburn tax payer will be safe and save money. Please protect out town…

OneWhoCares

January 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Lets not be held hostage by anyone.
Lets not be held hostage by anyone.Once the county builds the bridge their will be a number of privet and commercial builders waitting at out door to build on our terms and surely

Better Not Just Bigger

GM

January 29, 2013 at 8:07 AM

“We need (the public’s) input,” trustee Bill Grabarek said.

Well, look around, Over & Over the public’s input has been “NO”.

“No” to being held hostage for the bridge
“No” for extremely high density development.
“No” to apparently unstable developers finances.

Pronunciation: nō
a. 1. Not any; not one; none; as, yes, we have no bananas; – often used as a quantifier.
Let there be no strife . . . between me and thee.

Let the county handle the bridge problems, if the money…

GM

January 29, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Let the county handle the bridge problems, if the money earmark is not there or lost, it IS the counties fault.